Saturday, January 30, 2010

As another report details the unraveling of the green conspiracy at the IPCC, we really need to step back and ask, what's going on? Why are so many fraudulent claims being made about climate?

Climategate revealed that scientists had been suppressing data that global temperatures have actually been declining for ten years even as carbon dioxide emissions are increasing. And dissenting views were being censored as well. The data showing the mini ice age and subsequent warming was smoothed to make the 20th century temperatures stand out in Penn State Professor Michael Mann's now discredited "hockey stick" chart. Conflicting data sources, ice cores and tree rings were cherry picked to fit the curve instead of a curve being used to fit the data, something grade school children are warned about.

The poster child of the global warming crowd, the "endangered" polar bear, pictured above at a penguin barbecue, has actually been increasing in population for the past several decades.

Then it was discovered that the arctic ice cap was incorrectly underestimated by 500,00 square kilometers, an area roughly the size of the State of California.

Just yesterday there was a news report that rain forest data was also misappropriated to make a false claim about global warming.

And now, in the linked report comes word that glaciers in the Himalyayas are not receding at an alarming rate, but at a typographical error caused the year 2350 to be transposed as 2035. This folows news that the number of temperature sensors above the arctic circle was dramatically reduced to one, and that one was near an urban center and airport.

So why is the whole climate change concept being fraudulently presented to the public? What purpose does it serve? Well, almost everywhere you look at the people who are in making environmental policy, from the head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, to the President of the United States, Barack Obama to the High Priest of Global Warming, err Climate Change, Al Gore, you find people who have investments in the so-called green energy movement. Conflict of interest doesn't do justice to the rampant corruption involved.

The Greens have wreaked havoc on our country and economic growth for decades now. From stopping the building of new nuclear power plants, to banning oil drilling, coal mining and natural gas exploration, off and on shore, to stopping the construction of new refineries, the Greens have thwarted our nation's growth and development through intimidation and fraud. And our political leaders have failed to call them out.

It is time to elect leaders who will not be afraid to take on the radical environmentalists and call them out for what they are. In stead of bending to their tactics,we should be arresting them for treason. They have damaged our country more than the terrorists, more than natural disasters, more than wars.

Friday, January 29, 2010

This story is enough to make you tear your hair and gnash your teeth. Nearly two weeks after Scott Brown was elected to fill the vacant US Senate seat from Massachusetts, the Senate voted 60-39 to raise the debt limit by 1.9 trillion dollars.

So did Brown vote for it or did another Republican cross over? No, the fact is, Paul Kirk, who was appointed by Massacusetts Governor Deval Patrick to sit in the late Senator Ted Kennedy's seat until the special election is still in it. Why, you may ask? Because the corruptocrats who run the State of Massachusetts, led by Secretary of State Bill Galvin, in cahoots with the US Congress have stalled the certification of Brown in order to continue their illegal and immoral deeds.

According to the L.A. Times:

"The measure passed 60-39 under ground rules insisted upon by Republicans that required 60 votes to pass it. Democrats and allied independents control 60 seats — for now — and were only able to win the vote because Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts has yet to be seated."

Now remember, Brown won by over 5% of the vote. The weakly stated reason for delaying certification was to count all the absentee ballots. But there aren't enough absentee ballots in all the ACORN offices in the country to make up the difference. And besides, Brown won handily among veterans and active duty military who represent a fair share of those outstanding ballots.

What's going on here is pure chicanery. Kirk's appointment in itself was a controversial, and I say example of corrupt maneuvering. The law was quickly changed last summer to add the interim appointment when Harry Reid realized he needed the 60th vote to close off debate for an earlier procedural vote in the Senate on healthcare. The same law had been changed in 2004 when the Democratic controlled state legislature realized that if John Kerry was elected president (how much of a long shot was that anyway?) Republican Governor Mitt Romney could have appointed a REPUBLICAN to fill out the term!

Now instead of casting a vote for all the Americans who supported him, Brown is appearing on Leno and Barbara Walters while a usurper casts votes in his place.

No matter where you sit in the political spectrum, I believe everybody is fed up with the rampant corruption, back room deals and waste in our current government. Did we really just spend a million dollars for Nancy Pelosi's entourage to have fine wine and caviar on their Air Force jets during their failed trip to Copenhagen?

It's time to throw the bums out and I mean the corrupt career politician incumbents on both sides. You know who they are. You wanted change? Well you didn't get it.

Massachsetts shocked the world by electing Brown. But there's still an open sewer in Massachusetts called Beacon Hill where the kind of criminal behavior practiced in Washington has been incubating for a genration or more. Three straight Speakers of the House have been indicted and yet the same corrupt ruling party is still in control, scheming their way to keep their grasp on power everyday, handing out no-show jobs to family and friends, fleecing the taxpayers for exhorbitant expense accounts, lifetime salaries and benefits for having "served" the good people of the Commonwealth."

Howard Zinn is as responsible for poisoning the minds of American students with anti-American rubbish as anyone who ever lived. His distorted "history" is one of the reasons more people know about the Japanese internment during World War II than the Normandy invasion, more about injustices against native Americans than the liberation of Eastern Europe, more about slavery than the US Constitution, more about the failings of the founding fathers than their great accomplishments.

A high school history teacher I know once said that it's easier to teach negative history. "The kids get more engaged than just memorizing names and dates." If so, then it's like a drug. You might feel good but it's not necessarily good for you.

Even Zinn admitted his view of "history" was not meant to be factual. But liberals are content to see the world through individual feelings more than facts and so Zinn's garbage has been used widely by the left leaning education establishment to indoctrinate generations of young people. I'm not one for banning books but his certainly should not be allowed in US schools.

The results are devastating as a corrupt political establishment tramples on the US Constitution and nobody seems to notice or care.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

I think Harry Reid's long yawn captured the essence of this speech. Too long and rambling and too short on substance.

Obama is still campaigning but for what? He couldn't pass his plans with a super majority in both houses and now is warning the Republicans to go along with him?

He's still pushing for climate change legislation even as more revelations of fraud and deceit leak out of the IPCC and NASA stonewalls FOIA requests.

He attacks the Supreme Court like some angry child, throwing 230 years of decorum out the window. Sam Alito responded to the attack in this video but he could as easily have made the same comment "not true" about the entire speech.

His national security segment was late, unfocused and reduced to a statement about gays in the military as though he's unaware that most people are questioning his administration's handling of the Fort Hood shooting, the Christmas Day bomber and the move of GITMO military trials to criminal courts in NYC.

He calls for openness and transparency as though we're supposed to forget that he's spent the last 6 months behind locked doors with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of lobbyists for pharma and insurance companies.

There has to be a way out of this nightmare of a presidency. Let's take a closer look at that birth certificate. Maybe that's where Hillary Clinton really was last night.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

There will be a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl this year. That is unless the bloodthirsty proponents of the world's most immoral business get their way. To even characterize the ad as "pro-life," putting a political character on it, makes a statement about our society, as does the oppositon to it.

According to the linked article on LifeSiteNews.com "back in 1987, [University of Florida Quarterback Tim Tebow's] mother contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant with him in the Philippines, and doctors recommended abortion. Had Pam Tebow taken that advice, Tebow fans would never have seen the football phenomenon win the Heisman Trophy in 2007 and carry the Gators to victory in two major championships."

What in the ad's content could spur a protest? The opponents wouldn't know since the ad has not been released. No, something more threatening than a distortion is looming - the truth. The fact is, any child, no matter how conceived, can go on to greatness. And no matter how difficult the circumstances of one's conception, the blessings that a life can bring to the world are immeasurable.

A message like that is certainly a threat to those who try to maintain that nascent life is just a clump of tissue and abortion an amoral decision no more serious than getting your teeth cleaned. Tebow's life is all about witness to the beauty and sanctity of every individual and the courage some mothers, no, all mothers display in bearing and rearing children.

And that is the reason for the protest. Because the forces of evil, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and Women's Media Center are all up in arms about the ad.

It was sad to watch the black woman from WMC on Fox News last night. Doesn't she realize the whole point of the abortion industry is to make sure people like her are never born?

The forces of evil that lurk in the shadows, twisting the English language to distort their vile aims have much to fear. An ad like we're about to see could well cause a dramatic shift in public opinion and put evil on the run. The Super Bowl audience is one of the largest annual TV audiences each year. It is family viewing but also reaches nearly every demographic. It is one of the few events where people actually watch the ads.

It is the perfect place for the Tebow testimpny to life. I hope you watch it.

Monday, January 25, 2010

In another stroke of staged brilliance, President Barack Hussein Obama takes to the teleprompter in front of a group of 6th graders. I didn't have a photo of the enthralled students but I bet they were impressed by the president and his imported podium. One wonders if this man has command of any subject sufficient to deliver off the cuff remarks.

I mean seriously, it has come to the point where we have a

Congress that neither writes nor reads laws and a president who only reads speeches written by aids no matter the venue or subject. Who is really running the country?

And what message are we sending to our young people about how

government functions? What happened to statesmen who could assess a situation, craft a law and debate its merits without some special interest propping him up?

Perhaps if he used the invention at the right, he could save time and logistics work and be able to move around while he speaks. But then, maybe creating space between himself and those nasty little children was part of the point?

Saturday, January 23, 2010

This Friday, on the 37th anniversary of the constitutionally flawed and disastrous ruling by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, tens of thousands of people marched on the Capital to defend the personhood and humanity of the unborn. Amid new polls showing large majorities now consider themselves pro-life, and with a divided Supreme Court, the crowds for the annual March for Life only get larger and more enthused.

At the same time, we are now in the second year of the most radically pro abortion president in history. From Obama's appointment of ethically challenged Kathleen Sebelius to the head of Health and Human Services, to Kevin Jennings, the openly gay founder of GLSEN as the "safe schools czar", basic Judeo-Christian morality has never been more threatened.

But don't tell that to these protesters. With great hope and conviction, those who would gladly "be punished with a child" marched while singing and praying for the end to this holocaust. And where does this hop come from? Well first of all it comes from a belief in the basic goodness of humanity. Those who believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death believe this is instilled in our very makeup, and that abortion is just another result of man's fallen nature, a weakness in the moral fabric resulting from sin. Nobody told them that abortion is wrong. They felt it from the time they were born. And they believe that even those who profess otherwise know the truth.

This year, with the health care reform debate raging, there was more urgency than ever to let people know that the vast majority does not support taxpayer funding for abortion and

that funding Planned Parenthood as a quasi-federal agency is not going to be accepted by the masses. Among the many contradictions in this historic presidency of Barack Obama is the glaring truth that Planned Parenthood's roots go back to the eugenic philosophy of Margaret Sanger who among others, wanted the elimination nof the black race. Her legacy is alive and well as abortion clinics continue to be established in black poor communities and black are disproportionately represented among those receiving abortions. Some remember that before James O'Keefe made his now famous undercover recording exposing ACORN, he did a likewise explosive expose of Planned Parenthood accepting donations specifically targeting black babies.

Sadly, only a few black leaders have picked up on the fact that their community is being targeted by a blatantly racist conspiracy to wipe them out.

So the marchers come, they make their point, and they go back about the task of eliminating the evil scourge of abortion in our land with renewed hope. this is an epic battle, one that will be won in local, state and federal legislatures and courtrooms. But it will be won. it is the slavery issue of our time and truth is on the side of the pro-lifers.

Friday, January 22, 2010

There's something really rotten going on in the Department of Justice and it starts at the top. Eric Holder is picking up right where he left off as a member of Janet Reno's DOJ. In that role he was part of the murder at Ruby Ridge, the massacre at Branch Davidian, the return of Elian Gonzalez to Cuba and the pardon of Marc Rich.

He wasn't unemployed for the past 8 years though. He was part of a law firm that defended terror suspects, some who were being held at Guantanamo Bay.

In his new role he made the decision to afford criminal status to new terror suspects and to hold the trials of high profile previously detained terrorists including Khalid Sheik Muhammad inside the criminal justice system. Along the way he also decided not to press charges against armed new Black Panther Party members who were caught on film intimidating voters outside a polling station during the 2008 election. Nor has his department done anything to protect tea party protesters or pro-life protesters when they have been assaulted, even when these assaults also were caught on tape.

With Eric Holder heading up Justice, it is a very dangerous time for Americans. The FBI and other instruments of the DOJ are critical to protecting us from enemies, foreign and domestic. But the Obama administration doesn't see any threats except to themselves from those who oppose their policies.

I'm afraid they will get a wakeup call, if they didn't already. The failed attempt to bring down a commercial airliner on Christmas Day had Holder's fingerprints all over it. Instead of turning the suspect over to military authorities and the CIA to glean any useful information about pending subsequent attacks, Holder got him a lawyer and read him Miranda rights like he was a shoplifter. Whatever the shelf life was for the information this man had has surely expired by now. But any attacks that ensue in the short term at least are on Holder. But I don't think he cares. One of his cronies is likely making a serious amount of change defending Abdulmutallab.

One has to reach the conclusion that Holder is either ideologically driven or corrupt. Since in each case he took the position favorable to donors to or members of the Democratic party, I tend to think he's more corrupt than anything.

A most memorable, almost Reaganesque line from the recent special election in Massachusetts came from Senator-elect Scott Brown commenting on the mishandling of national security under Obama and Holder, "we should be using our money to buy weapons to kill terrorists, not lawyers to defend them." I think that sums it up.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

When asked about the stunning victory by Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election Tuesday, President Barack Obama made reference to the same anger that swept him to office has now done the same for Sen. Brown.

While that refrain worked well during the 2008 campaign when the bottom had fallen out of the economy, it would be a stretch to characterize the entire Bush Presidency as a failure. First of all had it been widely perceived as such, Bush wouldn't have been reelected by a relatively comfortable margin in 2004.

When Bush came to office in 2001, there was a recession already underway. His tax cuts spurred the economy as predicted, increased tax revenues and led to a six year boom. In 2006, Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and all the committee chairmanships. At the end of 2007, the stock market was at an all-time high. Unemployment was holding under 5%, home ownership was at a historical high, home prices were steadily increasing faster than inflation which was largely unknown. In mid 2007, hardly anyone would have looked back and claimed the previous five years were a "failure".

There is still a legitimate dispute about what caused the crash that started in late 2007 and accelerated in late 2008. The housing bubble that burst could be traced to over aggressive lending and a leveling and fall back in home prices that both Congress and the regulatory arm of the executive branch both contributed to. Certainly the results of the 2008 election reflected voter anger at the incumbent Republican leadership.

But looking back can be dangerous. If one doesn't address causes, the wrong remedies may be applied. Adding massive debt, spending and higher taxes, can attenuate any economic recovery, exacerbate unemployment, shrink revenues.

Small business owners know lending is almost nonexistent and new investment is tight as portfolio managers try to keep existing pre-exit investments alive. As health and tax expenses go up, more strain is put on emerging businesses, many of which will fail.

The reason Scott Brown won his election is n ot anger at George Bush. it is fear that the policies being put in place by the Obama administration will slow recovery or add to the recession, kill jobs and stall business investment. There is also fear that the health care bill will add to cost, reduce access and harm outcomes.

If the president keeps blaming the recent developments on the previous administration, he may find his own is short-lived. And if he thinks Massachusetts is an aberration, wait till November.

In 2004, a little known state senator from Chicago gave a rousing speech at the Democratic National Convention. Commentators immediately began to speak of him as presidential material. He got elected to the Senate and barely two years into his term was running for president. The rest is history.

This year we've witnessed a similar rise from the relative obscurity of state politics to an historic senate run by Scott Brown. Could this propel him to even higher office? Here's why I think so.

Because this was a special election in an off year, Brown all the attention he could want from the national media all to himself. Republican political operatives from all over the country came and worked for him as a tune up for the Fall election campaign. He also amassed a war chest that can be used to build support for other Republican candidates.

Brown has that elusive combination of charisma, populism and moderation that is always being sought for the national stage. He defies definition as liberal or conservative, opting instead to lay out how he would vote on specific issues. So while he says he is not pro-life, there is nary an issue related to abortion that he wouldn't vote the same as the pro-life block. He said he would have confirmed Sonia Sotomayor but many conservatives believe presidents enjoy constitutional prerogative to appoint judges. I have no doubt he would have also voted to confirm Roberts and Alito.

On marriage issues, he is a federalist believing the states should decide such issues. He voted to allow Massachusetts voters the right to vote on marriage. The Democrats prevailed and the current situation is the result of judicial decree, not the people's will.

In regards to 2012, Brown has a lot of national good will built up. he now has name recognition in all 50 states and people he can call upon in each. Even if the Democrats slide health care reform past us by one trick or another, he will be able to cast votes against stimulus III, Cap and Tax and other Obama priorities. He'll be known as the vote that restored bipartisanship and balance to the political debate and forced deal making into the light of day.

Brown has a military background, is strong on defense and is backed by police unions.

So what impedes Brown from a presidential run? First of all, good friend Mitt Romney. Romney worked behind the scenes to get Brown elected in state elections as well as this one and still has presidential aspirations. I believe Brown is more electable but he would not step in front of the man who helped him.

Brown's position on abortion is more nuanced than pro-life groups would like. Even this writer would prefer that he was more decidedly pro-life. Yet he may be able to convince more voters that he shares the views of the greatest number of them.

When 2012 campaigns heat up, Brown will only have served in the Senate for a year or so. Folks who now realize how unprepared Obama was to be president may not want to take another chance.

Is it crazy to even speculate on a presidential run? Crazier than the idea of a Republican winning the senate seat left vacant by one Ted Kennedy?

Massachusetts Race Still Close

Raleigh, N.C. – Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 51-46 in Public Policy Polling’s final survey of the Massachusetts Senate special election, an advantage within the poll’s margin of error.

Brown’s lead comes thanks to an overwhelming advantage with independents and the ability to pick off a decent number of Democrats. He’s getting the support of 19% of voters in Coakley’s party, while she is winning just 8% of the Republican vote. The lead with independents is 64-32.

Each candidate has seen a large decline in their favorability numbers as the campaign has taken on an increasingly negative tone. Brown’s +19 at 56/37, down 13 points from his +32 (57/25) standing a week ago. Coakley’s now in negative territory at 44/51 after being at a positive 50/42 previously, a 15 point net decline.

Republicans continue to show much more enthusiasm about the election than Democrats, with 89% of them saying they’re ‘very excited’ to go vote compared to 63% of Dems who express that sentiment. Brown has a 59-40 lead among voters in that category.

The likely electorate for Tuesday’s election continues to express skepticism about the Democratic health care plan with 48% saying they’re opposed to 40% who support it. President Obama’s approval stands at 44/43.

“Brown has a small advantage right now but special elections are unusually volatile and Martha Coakley is certainly still in this,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “She just needs to get more Democrats out to the polls.”

PPP surveyed 1,231 likely Massachusetts voters from January 16th to 17th. The margin of error is +/-2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

Complete results are attached and can be found at www.publicpolicypolling.com.

If you would like an interview regarding this release, please contact Dean Debnam at

Sunday, January 17, 2010

The linked article, and a slew just like it reflect an out of control political environment where the only way legislation gets passed is along a strict party line vote. In fact, the Republicans aren't even part of the discussion on key issues like health care reform or cap and trade legislation.

These reports make it sound like that's normal when in fact it's completely out of the ordinary. When Al Franken won the 60th senate seat after a long disputed election in Minnesota, the Democrats decided they would take advantage and pass partisan bills only.

It hasn't always been that way, in fact it seldom is. Bill Clinton's presidency is remembered for budget surpluses but Clinton era budgets required passage through a House of Representative where Republicans led by Newt Gingrich were in control. That means they had all the committee chairs which determine what bills even come up for a vote. He learned to deal with it and the country I would say was better off.

During the Bush years, some years the Republicans controlled both houses but never with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The Democrats were able to use that little bit of leverage particularly to block judicial nominees like Miguel Estrada.

The Constitution was crafted to ensure a slow deliberative lawmaking process. Most of the time there has been a two-party system as well as the three distinct branches of government to ensure checks and balances against abuses of power. I contend that the country will be better off if there is at least the possibility of a filibuster on controversial bills. Instead of one set of interests always benefitting from legislation and feeding a corrupt system, a blended, national interest will be fused. And it will be better for the president as well as the likelihood of sustained change improives if the party out of power at least has some hand in passing legislation.

A win by Scott Brown doesn't mean the end of the Obama legacy or the end of positive change. It may mean the opposite.

Like a lot of folks, I shared almost no policy positions with Ted Kennedy and largely despised him for his personal failures. But I also knew people including family members who experinced his legendary constituent outreach.

My wife related how her brother, a Vietnam era Marine, came down with a deadly form of cancer at the age of 19 while serving in Vietnam. He was having trouble getting released for treatment. So his mother wrote to Senator Ted Kennedy in hopes he could help. The brother got discharged and into treatment and his life was saved. So even when events told them that Kennedy didn't share their values, his various exploits including Chappaquiddick, they muted their criticism out of gratitude for the personal favor.

Stories like this are common around the state.

Scott Brown is another politician I have personal experience with. A young man, my son, was observing extreme political bias in his high school during the 2004 campaign. So he decided to form a political club to give students a forum to openly and safely debate the issues without teacher interference. The teachers predictably overreacted, disrupted club meetings and censored the meeting announcement posters. A State Senator named Scott Brown saw a news report about the controversy and wrote a personal letter to my son. In it he said:

"I can understand the frustration you sometimes feel when you are a minority opinion. I am one of only six Republican members in the Massachusetts Senate which is controlled by a majority of Democrats who number 34.

I am proud that you are standing up for your viewpoint even though they might be considered unpopular by some classmates with opposing views. However being able to express alternative viewpoints is one of the foundations of our democracy and everyone is entitled to their voice."

Fast forward to the current campaign however and you have a candidate to fill Kennedy's shoes who has no such record. In fact Martha Coakley has shown disdain for the common folks she will be tasked to serve, sneering about standing in the cold shaking hands outside Fenway Park for example. In the case of Gerald Amirault, she was willing to sacrifice an innocent man's freedom to further her career. The same with the 2005 child rape case she refused to prosecute. And more recently, she stood by and watched a campaign aid knock over a young reporter and then lied about it.

My son prevailed in a federal First Amendment lawsuit against his school for viewpoint discrimination. Now he's a volunteer for the Brown for Senate campaign.

Sound Familiar? This week Martha Coakley didn't see Michael Meehan knock Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack down as he was walking right next to her. In the Wilkerson case, she didn't see cause for prosecution in this video. And doesn't seem to know there are terrorists in Afghanistan. Someone so obviously politically corrupt shouldn't be a US Senator. Attorney General maybe but Holder already got that.

In a new ad out from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) attacking Massachusetts Senate candidate Republican Scott Brown, an image of one of the old World Trade Center towers and the destroyed Marriott Hotel's western side in lower Manhattan is used to tie Brown to "greed and corruption."

Thankfully, since everyone and their mother has complained about this, the ad is now being run with a different image--another scary tall building.

BOSTON, Massachusetts, January 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a local radio interview Thursday, the Democrat candidate for Massachusetts' special U.S. senate election, Martha Coakley, said that those who object to participating in abortion and contraception, "probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room."

Coakley was responding to WBSM radio host Ken Pittman as he questioned her on her views about the role of conscience rights for health care workers.

Coakley said she opposed an amendment filed by Republican candidate and state senator Scott Brown in a Massachusetts measure to protect the right of health care workers' not to distribute emergency contraception against their religious beliefs.

PITTMAN: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin, uh, you don’t want to do that.

COAKLEY: No, but we have a seperation of church and state Ken, let’s be clear.

PITTMAN: Yeah, in the emergency room, you still have your religious freedom.

COAKLEY: [stuttering] The law says that people are allowed to have that. And so then, you can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

PITTMAN: Wow. Ok.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League expressed shock at Coakley's apparent disregard for religious liberty.

"Conscientious objector rights are essential to religous liberty," Donohue told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) Friday morning. "I don't quite understand how someone - even if someone were an atheist - it's a staple in a free society that people cannot be forced to violate their conscience on something that's morally repugnant. But she doesn't seem to care."

The special election pitting Coakley against Republican Scott Brown in next Tuesday's election has received national attention: the unexpected popularity of the dark horse Republican could jeopardize the future of President Obama's health care bill by robbing Senate Democrats of their filibuster-proof 60 vote majority. Brown has vowed to be the "41st vote" against the health care overhaul, a platform that appears to have attracted rapid support for his candidacy amid widespread public discontent over the bill.

Once considered the easy favorite, Coakley has suffered a dramatic drop in poll numbers this week: a CrossTarget poll Thursday showed Brown ahead by 15.4%, while a Suffolk University Political Research Center published Thursday morning showed Brown ahead by 4%.

Some Massachusetts officials say, however, that even should Brown win the election, the swearing-in process could be delayed for weeks - long enough for the health bill to be pushed through.